1
24

[–] AzureNova 1 points 24 points (+25|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Carrier pigeon? She has an email address specifically for her job, which was legally the only one she was allowed to use {edit: for confidential information}, because those servers are designed to have the privacy that befits state secrets. If it was just an extension of Benghazi then it wouldn't be that big, but you have to admit it gets a bit shady when a judge orders her to turn over her email server so she immediately deletes everything.

0
20

[–] ltmyndonos 0 points 20 points (+20|-0) ago 

Couple it with the fact that you'd be severely fined and jailed for not using said server. Anyone other than a Clinton would be in jail for it.

[–] [deleted] 3 points 0 points (+3|-3) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

1
1

[–] AzureNova 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

I had been a bit hasty in my response; my edit reflects a more objective viewpoint now. There are laws in place against mishandling confidential information (http://time.com/3977063/hillary-clinton-emails-laws-rules/). Even huff po is claiming that she was knowingly mishandling confidential information (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/abraham-r-wagner/hillarys-servergate-round_b_7989500.html). Her denial of the confidentiality is to be weighed accordingly with her denial that the emails ever existed. If the server was clean, then the matter could have been closed by now, but when she wiped it (in contempt of the court) she forced the long procedure to find definitive evidence that she did wrong, or a lack of it.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 19 points (+20|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
4

[–] Eshu_Eleggua 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

I am in full agreement with you and don't care about the politics here. It was just a terrible idea to keep information that she would have access to on a non-encrypted server. It was bad that it was private, but the non-encrypted part just makes it a million times worse.

I still can't believe so many people will let politics cloud their reasoning on this, but that is the way people are.

0
5

[–] heroicdanger 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

It's worth pointing out, attempting not to patronise, that many people who aren't tech savvy don't understand how big of a deal this is. To many any email is secure and I would presume due to age that Hilary isn't exactly well read on SSL,HTTPS,PGP and the rest.

It's a very big issue because it would be trivially easy for a n enemy Government to monitor and even change all emails coming in and out of the address. For a woman tasked with much diplomatically sensitive information that is an intelligence agencies worst nightmare

0
11

[–] Limpingdead 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

General Petraus retained 8 binders from the Afghan war and did not adequately protect them and got a 100,000 dollar fine. Hillary had the actual position of the ambassador that died in Libya on her email server that had no protection on it what so ever. One seems about as bad as the other to me.

1
2

[–] l-emmerdeur 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

I'm pretty sure Pratraeus was sentenced thusly for intentionally sharing classified information with his mistress.

So that would be a bad comparison.

0
4

[–] Limpingdead 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

He denied sharing the books with his biographer and was not convicted of doing so only of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material and even if he did, she shared all the emails on her server with her aides and her lawyer basically making it the same.

0
6

[–] KilbornsMomentofZen 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Really? I'm not going to waste my time simplifying this. Just know that any military personnel guilty of the same crime would be sent to Leavenworth for life at the very least for the same offence.

0
4

[–] rwbj 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

There's a lot of reasons I find this whole issue concerning. The first is our government is increasingly out of touch with technical realities. Obama thinking he can or that it would be a good idea to ban standard encryption and force people to use a government backdoored encryption is a level of ignorance that would be nothing short of stupefying to nearly any security expert. Isn't he supposed to have advisers and not just yes men? Now Hillary took this a step further by not only setting up a 'private server' but doing so in such a bumbling fashion that she may have inadvertently exposed massive amounts of classified information to the rest of the world's spy services or even technically sophisticated criminal enterprises.

There's also the issue of why she attempted to set up a private server instead of using normal (and more secure) communication channels. Whatever the reason she has since made false statements in public related to the inquiry, interfered with the investigation, and much more. If she was a normal person she would absolutely be in a jail cell awaiting trial right now. That she is so willing to openly act above the law is terrifying and a major reflection of her character. And this is without even speculating on what is or was actually on the server that she's so desperately trying to hide.

In a nutshell this all makes her look incompetent, corrupt, and seeming to believe she's above the law. I also started out thinking it was kind of a nonissue along the lines of Obama's birth certificate, but this is actually a very real issue and I think we can learn a great deal about her by watching how it is playing out.

0
1

[–] FPHrefugee 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

The problem (and I lean toward the left, so not a GOP thing) is that there are servers and emails with government level encryption and protection. There are secure video chats even, specially for the government. Think about trying to hack into the CIA or NSA, it's the stuff of legends sorta. Now think about reading your brother's email by figuring out his password or just hacking a tiny bit. Posting he's gay for a facebook status. That is the level of skill it would take to break into her non protected emails. There is a reason it's a VERY strict protocol. Can you imagine Russia knowing all about our military stuff, vital state secrets, classified names of possible CIA operatives, etc? Or Iraq? ISIS? Any of them could have (and might have- it's possible to do without a trace) gotten ahold of our classifed info. BIG top secret, top of the food chain shit.

She put our national security at risk by doing so. We don't even know if there will be future fallout from this stuff. And we don't even know now what info we need to change or alter, because she deleted stuff. Putting her personal self first instead of the country's security. So now we can't even protect ourselves from the risk she put us at.

China may know the locations of secret nuclear missiles, or our foreign spies names leaked and they will be killed, or any other number of things. ISIS may know how to circumvent our monitoring, letting them plan the next terrorist attack unhindered. People can DIE because she didn't want to use the secure servers.

Any one else would be in jail for treason because of these things. And she KNEW it was a risk, but wanted to do so to hide her own shady dealings.

1
1

[–] SwiftCase 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

It'd be a big deal if anything she was sending was leaked out and it was classified at the time, but I don't think that happened, unless I missed something. It doesn't seem like a big deal to me, but she did delete everything on the server which is odd.

0
8

[–] Citizen 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

While this is a reasonable counter-argument, it's wrong.

All non-trivial software is faulty. All non-trivial software has bugs that can be exploited in order to gain more access than you should legitimately have. In order to counter this, the US takes the extreme precaution of having an entirely separate network that can't be accessed from the outside. They have many additional security precautions that would be deemed over the top in a typical corporate environment.

Clinton wasn't even following industry standard best practice on her server. (For example, a self-signed SSL certificate.) So, it was not as secure as a typical corporate server. As Secretary of State of the USA, she was one of the top security targets in the world. China, Russia and Israel have shown themselves willing to use 0-day exploits to break into much less important targets, so it can be safely assumed that they would use 0-days to attack Clinton's email server.

Therefore, by using the public Internet to send confidential information over a multi-year period, it can be assumed with almost certainty that some of that confidential information was accessed by foreign powers.

TLDR; some of the smartest security people in the world said, "Do this or you'll get haxxed." Clinton did the exact opposite. She probably got haxxed, but we may never know for sure.

0
0

[–] AmazingFlightLizard 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

GOP smear campaign, huh? Like some sort of vast right wing conspiracy?

load more comments ▼ (2 remaining)